To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

SUNDAY MORNING, NOVEMBER 1, 1964
~ ,
'Dropping Of
A-Plant Ends
Long Dispute
By DON ENGDAHL
An epochal chapter in a mon­umental
running news story was
written last Friday with Pacific
Gas & Electric Co.'s dramatic
withdrawal from Bodega Head.
Whether that was really the
end of the remarkable saga re­mains
- characteristically -
somewhat up in the air.
From beginning to date the
story of the giant utility and
the people has seldom been sim­ple,
and nearly always dramat-ic.
.
PG&E has announced with­drawal
of its application to the
Atomic Energy Commission to
bulld a $63 million nuclear­SAN
FRANCISCO (UPI)­The
Sierra Club yesterday
urged the Bodega Head, now
abandoned as the site for a
nuclear power plant, become
a state park.
In a letter to Pacific Gas &
Electric Co., owner of the
property, Sierra C I u b Pres­ident
William E. Siri said, "Bo­dega
Head .now appears to
have been an unsafe location
for an atomio pl;mt and it
remains an unsuitable place
for any power plant on the
original grounds of scenic, his­toric
and bioligical preserva-
·tion." ,
fueled power plant on the pen- ---------~­insular
headland that forms the plant on the bar re n Bodega
west side of Bodega Bay. headlands and went to the coun-
It sa~d a "reasonable doubt" ty for a u;e permit.
was raIsed by an AEC staff con- At th t r 'th f '1 f I d
elusion that the site is un suit- a Ime el er OSSI -. ue e
HOW CONDEMNED SITE LOOKED THIS WEEKEND
Its Future Is Uncertain
able at the present state of or nucl~~r. power was conSIdered
knowledge. a POSSI~liJty, a~d t~e company
The company stifF whIch It planned;
. acres on the headlands, which it Announcement of nuclear pow­once
considered a prime site -
for an electric generating plant.
What it will do with the site
now remains an unanswered
question. The PG&E statement
said the company has generat­ing
capacity elsewhere to "take
care of our customers' needs for I
the s eve r a I years immedi- f
ately ahead." i
If the company proposed to
build instead a conventional gen­erating
plant, it' would have to
go back to the California Public
Utilities Commission for permis- !
sion. . :
And it would face similar ques­tions
of earthquake safety that i
. did in the nuclear plant propos- I
aI, as well as questions of eco- I
nomic feasibility. "
The long and incredibly com- \.
plicated saga of the utility's at­tempt
to build the Bodega plant \
reached the public arena in 1958. j
Then PG&E announced plans ~
to build an electric generating I 'I
And to PG&E, which could
I stand and fight, attempt to PG&E B d H d S· t show that there was a "reason-
I.fA- Press Democra', Santa Rosa, C'attf., Sun., Nov. 1, 1964
o eg a ea 1 e ~~I~s ~~~~~nce,,, or pull back H Public pressure was immedi- ad Controversial History :~;ise~O~heE~m~~dt:'p:ro:u~
. if there was "any question of
(Continued from, Page lA) westshore access road to thei the plant design was adequate safety at all,!' and PUC Com-er
as the source of heat for the plant-by letting a contract for I if "the reactor and turbine missioner William ~ennett sug­generating
plant was made by its construction. buildings will not be located on gested the PUC mIght re-enter
the company June 28, 1961. . . T~e road is now nearing com-I an active fault line." , the case i: PG&E perSisted.
The next .step. was a .hear~l~ pletlOn; s.ome problems of soft I Shortly after Interior Secre. PG&E WIthdrew .
~Y the Ca~If~1111a Public UtIlI- ~?ots on ~ts"s~oulder and somc ltary Stewart Udall expressed . The ro~e of. the p~b1ic protest
ties com. mission on the . compa- mud boils m the bay have! "grav. e concern" over potential lIn the SItuatIon WIll never be.
ny's application for a certificate arisen, and PG&E may be re- i earthquake hazards.· full y assessed. It certainly
of "convenience and necessity" quired ?y the U.S. Army Corps In August of that year, ap- c.aused delays and-some be­for
the plant. of Engmeers to do some col'· parently at least partly in re- lIeve-guaranteed a closer scru-
That was in March of 1962; it rective dredging.sponse to the AEC committee's tiny of the project than would
was a .low-key, three-~ay affair It is eventually to be turned e:l.'"Pression of concern over the otherwise have taken place.
held m San FrancIsco and over to Sonoma County as a possibility an active earthquake On the other hand, It may be
marked by a minimum of op- public road. I line was beneath the site PG&E argued that what happened
Position-all on a conservation While opponents began repeat- began excavating the i42-foot.lwould have happened anyway;
theme. PG&E was at that time ed attempts to get the Califor- diameter, 73-foot reactor pit. that the case would have been
1n the process · of acquiring the i nia Public Utilities Commission one on which " reasonable men,
last of the 225 acres for the pow- fto re-open the case, PG&E went , Site Called "Poor" may differ," as the AEC Staff i
er plant site on the tiP . of the II t? the Ato~ic Energy Commis- Almost as the excavation be- wrote, and tha~ the difference
headlands. . sl?n I.ate m .Dec.ember of 1962 gan, the Northern califOrnia \WOUld have raJse~ the dOUbts ,
Mter the PUC hearmg was WIth Its appiJcahon for a con- Association to Preserve Bodega that PG&E PreSIdent Robert
~Iosed the state body got a · struction permit f~r the plant. Head & Harbor produced a re- I G~rdeS cited when he a?no~nCed I
' large number" of protests and And another splmter battle de- port by an internationally-mown WIthdrawal of the applJcatlon. .
re-opened the hearing for five veloped as the association went earthquake expert who said the - .
more days ih May and June that to court in Sonoma County, seek- site-was-"very poor:" . 1
showed the first real strength ing to invalidate the use permit I Dr_ Pierre Saint-Arnand re-of
opp~sition to the proposal. I the county had given the com-I ported that he'd seen evidence \
Agam, the real focus was on pany for the plant. of faulting at the plant site and
the conservationist theme al- 'I The county won that fight in a concluded it "quite likely" that I
though biological and earthquake ,legal decision that 'turned on a there'd be movement across the I
hazards were spotlighted from I ruling that opponents had "slept site in the event of a major I
time to time. Ion their rights" in not going to earthquake.
The PUC in November of that court earlier - and promptly In November of last year the
year issued its approval of the capped the victory with a re- first of what became a series
plan-conditioned sub~equent ap zoning. of Bodega Head that lo£ reports by United States Geo­proval
by the AtomiC Energy made It unnecessary for the logical Survey geologists was
Commission?~ the reactor. . company to have a permit any· released; it revealed the pres-
The OppoSItIon at that time way_ ence of the "shaR fault," a
was far from organized, and its Meanwhile, the central issue fault in the underlying granite
attack on the PG&E plan was in the battle-the issue that fi· rock running through the reac­guerrilla
warfare on targets of nally became fatal-was coming tor pit.
opportunity. A leader of sorts into clearer focus: Earthquake PG&E consultants .termed it
then was David Pesonen, con- danger at the site. inactive, and predicted that any
.ervation editor of the Sierra The spot chosen by PG&E movements of the rock would
ClUb. for the reactor and associated be "of such minor amounts as
The PUC in November of that buildings-on the easterly side to be negligible."
year issued its approval of the of Bodega Head, opposite Doran USGS geologists disagreed,
plan-conditioned on subsequent Park- is about 1,000 feet wester· and said bedrock movements
approyal of the reactor by the lyof the broad trace of the San "on the order of a few feet" I
AtomIC Energy Commission. Andreas earthquake fault. were likely in the event of a I
Opposition Organizes ~u&.I!.; geological .an~ seismo- 1906-magnltude e~rthq~~e.
Opposition forces meanwhile logIcal c~nsultants mSIsted that The dispute was .clear and un­had
been organizing under the the locatl?n was a good ?llE:-1 re~olved, and contmued through
banner of the Northern Califor- and that ~ fact the proxlimty thIS yea:.
nia Association To Preserve BOo to the mam fault meant less The dIspute led PG&E-never
dega Head & Harbor A d b _ danger from earthquake trem- conceding the possibility that
ginning to concentrat~ i~s f:e ors. . . there hight be large ground
on tbe safety aspects of the . In May of 1.963 th AEC's Ad- moven:ents-to submit. to ' the
Plant wI-th M P th vlsory CommIttee on Reactor AEC m April a " deSIgn con-
" exec, utive secrr. etaersyo.n" en as e S~ f e guard s, an a d VI. SO~ c?m- cep t" wh 'l ch I. t saI-d woul d take
In December PG&E ended one i m1dtteee nm:ade. up of 13 .StClentIsdt.s caTreh °tf the Ptro~~eflm. t" th
phase of a controversy within a i ~n ng eel s, gave I s con 1- a was 0 oa e reac­controversy
_ the 1"0 f f bonal approval to the power tor on a layer of sand, instead
u mg 0 a plant plans. of bedding, it in the rock as
But it warned of a source of was previously planned. ' I
potenfa tro bl in savi g hat The new concept led to a'
series of probing questions from
the AEC regulatory staff aimed
at the consequences of ground
movement of the order pre­dicted
by the USGS.
As it finally turned out, the
utility's answers satisfied the I
AEC's Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards that the I
plant could be built with the
"reasonable" assu r ran c e of I
safety.
But they failed to convince
the regulatory staff, which re­ported
it disagreed, and found
the site unsuitable-an unprece­dented
situation in the AEC
lant licensing program. .
That left it to the AEC, whicl1.
could issue a permit for the I
lant only after public hearings.

SUNDAY MORNING, NOVEMBER 1, 1964
~ ,
'Dropping Of
A-Plant Ends
Long Dispute
By DON ENGDAHL
An epochal chapter in a mon­umental
running news story was
written last Friday with Pacific
Gas & Electric Co.'s dramatic
withdrawal from Bodega Head.
Whether that was really the
end of the remarkable saga re­mains
- characteristically -
somewhat up in the air.
From beginning to date the
story of the giant utility and
the people has seldom been sim­ple,
and nearly always dramat-ic.
.
PG&E has announced with­drawal
of its application to the
Atomic Energy Commission to
bulld a $63 million nuclear­SAN
FRANCISCO (UPI)­The
Sierra Club yesterday
urged the Bodega Head, now
abandoned as the site for a
nuclear power plant, become
a state park.
In a letter to Pacific Gas &
Electric Co., owner of the
property, Sierra C I u b Pres­ident
William E. Siri said, "Bo­dega
Head .now appears to
have been an unsafe location
for an atomio pl;mt and it
remains an unsuitable place
for any power plant on the
original grounds of scenic, his­toric
and bioligical preserva-
·tion." ,
fueled power plant on the pen- ---------~­insular
headland that forms the plant on the bar re n Bodega
west side of Bodega Bay. headlands and went to the coun-
It sa~d a "reasonable doubt" ty for a u;e permit.
was raIsed by an AEC staff con- At th t r 'th f '1 f I d
elusion that the site is un suit- a Ime el er OSSI -. ue e
HOW CONDEMNED SITE LOOKED THIS WEEKEND
Its Future Is Uncertain
able at the present state of or nucl~~r. power was conSIdered
knowledge. a POSSI~liJty, a~d t~e company
The company stifF whIch It planned;
. acres on the headlands, which it Announcement of nuclear pow­once
considered a prime site -
for an electric generating plant.
What it will do with the site
now remains an unanswered
question. The PG&E statement
said the company has generat­ing
capacity elsewhere to "take
care of our customers' needs for I
the s eve r a I years immedi- f
ately ahead." i
If the company proposed to
build instead a conventional gen­erating
plant, it' would have to
go back to the California Public
Utilities Commission for permis- !
sion. . :
And it would face similar ques­tions
of earthquake safety that i
. did in the nuclear plant propos- I
aI, as well as questions of eco- I
nomic feasibility. "
The long and incredibly com- \.
plicated saga of the utility's at­tempt
to build the Bodega plant \
reached the public arena in 1958. j
Then PG&E announced plans ~
to build an electric generating I 'I
And to PG&E, which could
I stand and fight, attempt to PG&E B d H d S· t show that there was a "reason-
I.fA- Press Democra', Santa Rosa, C'attf., Sun., Nov. 1, 1964
o eg a ea 1 e ~~I~s ~~~~~nce,,, or pull back H Public pressure was immedi- ad Controversial History :~;ise~O~heE~m~~dt:'p:ro:u~
. if there was "any question of
(Continued from, Page lA) westshore access road to thei the plant design was adequate safety at all,!' and PUC Com-er
as the source of heat for the plant-by letting a contract for I if "the reactor and turbine missioner William ~ennett sug­generating
plant was made by its construction. buildings will not be located on gested the PUC mIght re-enter
the company June 28, 1961. . . T~e road is now nearing com-I an active fault line." , the case i: PG&E perSisted.
The next .step. was a .hear~l~ pletlOn; s.ome problems of soft I Shortly after Interior Secre. PG&E WIthdrew .
~Y the Ca~If~1111a Public UtIlI- ~?ots on ~ts"s~oulder and somc ltary Stewart Udall expressed . The ro~e of. the p~b1ic protest
ties com. mission on the . compa- mud boils m the bay have! "grav. e concern" over potential lIn the SItuatIon WIll never be.
ny's application for a certificate arisen, and PG&E may be re- i earthquake hazards.· full y assessed. It certainly
of "convenience and necessity" quired ?y the U.S. Army Corps In August of that year, ap- c.aused delays and-some be­for
the plant. of Engmeers to do some col'· parently at least partly in re- lIeve-guaranteed a closer scru-
That was in March of 1962; it rective dredging.sponse to the AEC committee's tiny of the project than would
was a .low-key, three-~ay affair It is eventually to be turned e:l.'"Pression of concern over the otherwise have taken place.
held m San FrancIsco and over to Sonoma County as a possibility an active earthquake On the other hand, It may be
marked by a minimum of op- public road. I line was beneath the site PG&E argued that what happened
Position-all on a conservation While opponents began repeat- began excavating the i42-foot.lwould have happened anyway;
theme. PG&E was at that time ed attempts to get the Califor- diameter, 73-foot reactor pit. that the case would have been
1n the process · of acquiring the i nia Public Utilities Commission one on which " reasonable men,
last of the 225 acres for the pow- fto re-open the case, PG&E went , Site Called "Poor" may differ," as the AEC Staff i
er plant site on the tiP . of the II t? the Ato~ic Energy Commis- Almost as the excavation be- wrote, and tha~ the difference
headlands. . sl?n I.ate m .Dec.ember of 1962 gan, the Northern califOrnia \WOUld have raJse~ the dOUbts ,
Mter the PUC hearmg was WIth Its appiJcahon for a con- Association to Preserve Bodega that PG&E PreSIdent Robert
~Iosed the state body got a · struction permit f~r the plant. Head & Harbor produced a re- I G~rdeS cited when he a?no~nCed I
' large number" of protests and And another splmter battle de- port by an internationally-mown WIthdrawal of the applJcatlon. .
re-opened the hearing for five veloped as the association went earthquake expert who said the - .
more days ih May and June that to court in Sonoma County, seek- site-was-"very poor:" . 1
showed the first real strength ing to invalidate the use permit I Dr_ Pierre Saint-Arnand re-of
opp~sition to the proposal. I the county had given the com-I ported that he'd seen evidence \
Agam, the real focus was on pany for the plant. of faulting at the plant site and
the conservationist theme al- 'I The county won that fight in a concluded it "quite likely" that I
though biological and earthquake ,legal decision that 'turned on a there'd be movement across the I
hazards were spotlighted from I ruling that opponents had "slept site in the event of a major I
time to time. Ion their rights" in not going to earthquake.
The PUC in November of that court earlier - and promptly In November of last year the
year issued its approval of the capped the victory with a re- first of what became a series
plan-conditioned sub~equent ap zoning. of Bodega Head that lo£ reports by United States Geo­proval
by the AtomiC Energy made It unnecessary for the logical Survey geologists was
Commission?~ the reactor. . company to have a permit any· released; it revealed the pres-
The OppoSItIon at that time way_ ence of the "shaR fault," a
was far from organized, and its Meanwhile, the central issue fault in the underlying granite
attack on the PG&E plan was in the battle-the issue that fi· rock running through the reac­guerrilla
warfare on targets of nally became fatal-was coming tor pit.
opportunity. A leader of sorts into clearer focus: Earthquake PG&E consultants .termed it
then was David Pesonen, con- danger at the site. inactive, and predicted that any
.ervation editor of the Sierra The spot chosen by PG&E movements of the rock would
ClUb. for the reactor and associated be "of such minor amounts as
The PUC in November of that buildings-on the easterly side to be negligible."
year issued its approval of the of Bodega Head, opposite Doran USGS geologists disagreed,
plan-conditioned on subsequent Park- is about 1,000 feet wester· and said bedrock movements
approyal of the reactor by the lyof the broad trace of the San "on the order of a few feet" I
AtomIC Energy Commission. Andreas earthquake fault. were likely in the event of a I
Opposition Organizes ~u&.I!.; geological .an~ seismo- 1906-magnltude e~rthq~~e.
Opposition forces meanwhile logIcal c~nsultants mSIsted that The dispute was .clear and un­had
been organizing under the the locatl?n was a good ?llE:-1 re~olved, and contmued through
banner of the Northern Califor- and that ~ fact the proxlimty thIS yea:.
nia Association To Preserve BOo to the mam fault meant less The dIspute led PG&E-never
dega Head & Harbor A d b _ danger from earthquake trem- conceding the possibility that
ginning to concentrat~ i~s f:e ors. . . there hight be large ground
on tbe safety aspects of the . In May of 1.963 th AEC's Ad- moven:ents-to submit. to ' the
Plant wI-th M P th vlsory CommIttee on Reactor AEC m April a " deSIgn con-
" exec, utive secrr. etaersyo.n" en as e S~ f e guard s, an a d VI. SO~ c?m- cep t" wh 'l ch I. t saI-d woul d take
In December PG&E ended one i m1dtteee nm:ade. up of 13 .StClentIsdt.s caTreh °tf the Ptro~~eflm. t" th
phase of a controversy within a i ~n ng eel s, gave I s con 1- a was 0 oa e reac­controversy
_ the 1"0 f f bonal approval to the power tor on a layer of sand, instead
u mg 0 a plant plans. of bedding, it in the rock as
But it warned of a source of was previously planned. ' I
potenfa tro bl in savi g hat The new concept led to a'
series of probing questions from
the AEC regulatory staff aimed
at the consequences of ground
movement of the order pre­dicted
by the USGS.
As it finally turned out, the
utility's answers satisfied the I
AEC's Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards that the I
plant could be built with the
"reasonable" assu r ran c e of I
safety.
But they failed to convince
the regulatory staff, which re­ported
it disagreed, and found
the site unsuitable-an unprece­dented
situation in the AEC
lant licensing program. .
That left it to the AEC, whicl1.
could issue a permit for the I
lant only after public hearings.